Kawtar Raji-Briand, a partner at the law firm Gauvin Raji, advises clients on structuring innovative financing, cross-border transactions, and legal and regulatory reform. In this interview, she provides insights into the legal framework governing investment in Western Sahara following the UN Security Council resolution adopted on October 31, 2025.

Ecofin Agency: The diplomatic landscape surrounding Western Sahara has recently undergone a major shift in favor of Morocco's broad autonomy plan. How does this development affect the legal environment for investment in the region, if at all?

Kawtar Raji-Briand: On October 31, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2797, calling on the parties to negotiate on the basis of the autonomy plan proposed by Morocco in order to reach “a just, lasting and mutually acceptable settlement” of the dispute over the Sahara. This resolution forms part of a broader diplomatic trend observed in recent years, reflected in official positions taken by major powers, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain and France, all affirming that Morocco’s autonomy plan constitutes a serious and credible basis for a settlement.

The negotiations held in Madrid on February 8 and 9, bringing together Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania and the Polisario under U.S. mediation, reflect this growing diplomatic alignment around a framework that is now internationally recognized, with implementation discussions continuing largely out of the public eye.

Investments and business activities in the Sahara are lawful, provided they contribute to the socio-economic development of the territory and are carried out in the interest of the local population.

For investors, this development is significant. It reduces the political uncertainty that for years has been a major deterrent when assessing regional risk.

From a strictly legal standpoint, however, neither this diplomatic momentum nor Resolution 2797 alters the formal status of the Sahara, which remains on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, defined under Article 73 of the UN Charter as territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

This raises the question of whether foreign investment in a Non-Self-Governing Territory, in this case the Sahara, is lawful.

Under international law, investment in such a territory is not prohibited per se. The determining criterion is respect for the interests of the population concerned. UN General Assembly resolutions are consistent on this point. Resolution 50/33 of February 9, 1996, expressly welcomes “foreign economic investment, when done in collaboration with the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories and in accordance with their wishes, could make a valid contribution to the socio-economic development of the Territories.”

Accordingly, investments and business activities in the Sahara are lawful, provided they contribute to the socio-economic development of the territory and are carried out in the interest of the local population.

This interpretation is supported by the legal opinion issued on February 12, 2002, by UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs Hans Corell, who concluded that mineral resource activities conducted in disregard of the needs and interests of the population of a Non-Self-Governing Territory would violate applicable principles of international law.

EA: What legal risks or disputes are most commonly cited today for companies operating in or with exposure to projects in this sensitive area?

Kawtar Raji-Briand: The relevant legal framework remains the opinion issued by Hans Corell. The mere classification of the Sahara as a Non-Self-Governing Territory is not, in itself, sufficient to establish a violation of international law.

If a challenge were brought against a foreign company operating in the Sahara, the burden would rest with the plaintiff to demonstrate, in a detailed and substantiated manner, that the activity in question disregards the interests of the local population, fails to contribute to the territory’s socio-economic development, or deprives that population of the benefits of its resources.

Fresh fruits and vegetables harvested in that territory may only be labeled “Western Sahara” as the country of origin.

In practice, projects that generate employment and local economic value are generally consistent with the criterion established under international law. That said, as the political process becomes clearer, the likelihood of legal challenges to foreign investments in the Sahara is declining.

EA: Traceability and product labeling are frequently cited in this context. Why are they now so central for companies and their partners?

Kawtar Raji-Briand: Traceability and product labeling have become central following repeated rulings by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which held that the territory of Western Sahara must be treated as a distinct customs territory for the purposes of Article 60 of the Union Customs Code. The Court also ruled that fresh fruits and vegetables harvested in that territory may only be labeled “Western Sahara” as the country of origin.

In response, the European Commission negotiated a new agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the EU and the Kingdom of Morocco, extending the tariff preferences granted under the Association Agreement to products originating from Western Sahara that fall under the control of Moroccan customs authorities. This agreement, which entered into force provisionally last October, provides that fruits and vegetables originating from Western Sahara must indicate the name of the harvest region, either Dakhla Oued Ed-Dahab or Laâyoune-Sakia El Hamra, as the place of origin rather than identifying a country of origin, in order to ensure accurate information for European consumers.

The next major milestone will be in October, when MINURSO’s mandate expires and a definitive settlement of the dispute could potentially be reached.

The Commission subsequently adopted and published a delegated regulation adjusting the labeling regime applicable to fruits and vegetables from the Sahara.

EA: Beyond legal considerations, how can project governance and stakeholder management increase risk or enhance investor resilience?

Kawtar Raji-Briand: As elsewhere in the world, companies are increasingly focused on demonstrating the socio-economic impact of their projects.

In the case of a Non-Self-Governing Territory, this requirement aligns with the principle mentioned earlier: economic activities must contribute to the development of the territory and be carried out in the interest of the local population. In this context, governance is no longer limited to corporate social responsibility; it becomes a matter of evidence.

For companies operating in the Sahara region, this requirement is already reflected in their internal governance standards, compliance frameworks and non-financial reporting practices.

EA: Over the medium term, what legal or institutional developments should companies monitor to assess how the investment framework in this region is evolving?

Kawtar Raji-Briand: Over the medium term, assessing the investment framework in the Sahara region should focus on two key indicators.

First, developments in the UN process. The next major milestone will be in October, when MINURSO’s mandate expires and a definitive settlement of the dispute could potentially be reached.

Second, developments in international investment law. Companies should monitor arbitral decisions involving investments in territories with contested status, as well as the positions taken by international financial institutions.

In addition, given the importance of trade with the European Union, close attention should be paid to ECJ case law, the implementation of rules of origin and labeling requirements, and any developments in EU-Morocco trade agreements. These factors will directly affect the security of trade flows and the compliance obligations of Moroccan exporters.

Interview by Louis-Nino Kansoun